Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Ss Case Study
Ss Case Study
1 Department of Industrial Engineering, Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran,
Iran, 2 Department of Industrial Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, Tehran, Iran,
3 Institute for Management and Planning Studies, Tehran, Iran
* a.forghani@srbiau.ac.ir
a1111111111
Abstract
a1111111111 Supplier selection is one of the critical processes in supplier chain management which is
a1111111111
associated with the flow of goods and services from the supplier of raw material to the final
a1111111111
a1111111111 consumer. The purpose of this paper is to present a novel approach and improves the sup-
plier selection in a multi-item/multi-supplier environment, and provide the importance and
the reliability of the criteria by handling vagueness and imperfection of information in deci-
sion making process. First, principal component analysis (PCA) method is used to reduce
OPEN ACCESS
the number of supplier selection criteria in pharmaceutical companies. Next, using the most
important criteria resulted from the PCA method, the importance and the reliability of the
Citation: Forghani A, Sadjadi SJ, Farhang
Moghadam B (2018) A supplier selection model in selected criteria are assessed by a group of decision-maker (DM). Then, the importance
pharmaceutical supply chain using PCA, Z-TOPSIS value of each supplier with respect to each product is obtained via the Technique for Order
and MILP: A case study. PLoS ONE 13(8): Performance by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) based on the concept of Z-numbers
e0201604. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
called Z-TOPSIS. Finally, these values are used as inputs in a mixed integer linear program-
pone.0201604
ming (MILP) to determine the suppliers and the amount of the products provided from the
Editor: Yong Deng, Southwest University, CHINA
related suppliers. To validate the proposed methodology, an application is performed in a
Received: December 24, 2017 pharmaceutical company. The results show that the proposed method could provide prom-
Accepted: June 21, 2018 ising results in decision making process more appropriately.
Published: August 15, 2018
of strategies among the industries concerning the supply chain regarding the product’s
characteristics.
Typically in dealing with the supplier selection discussion, two kinds of problems are pro-
pounded: First, the supplier is the one (natural or legal entity) who satisfies all the purchasers’
requirements (single sourcing); in this type of supplier selection, the management should
make the only decision to determine the best supplier. Second, there is no single supplier to
meet all the purchasers’ needs (multiple sourcing). Many companies encounter some disrup-
tion or inadequate supply capacity on the part of the supplier. Adopting the second model,
which is the ‘multiple sourcing’ the purchasing company meanwhile using the business pro-
cess, can resolve the unpredicted delay of supply by one of the numerous other suppliers.
It would not be convenient for the DM to choose suitable suppliers who can fulfill all the
firms’ demands based on different criteria. Another point to consider is that as a multiple crite-
ria decision-making (MCDM) problem, the supplier selection would lie under the effect of
many qualitative and quantitative contradictory factors. In order to maintain an equilibrium
among such conflicting criteria, many studies have proposed various models, encompassing
single to hybrid approaches. Adopting the single approach, the studies often consider locating
a solution for the supplier selection problem through specifying the optimal quantities that are
usually under the effect of a number of constraints. As an example, Zhang and Zhang [6] in
their study for minimizing the total cost including the product and fixed costs with stochastic
demand, developed a mixed-integer programming (MIP) model based on the assumption that
all the existing suppliers could meet the qualitative criteria level. In another study on the sup-
plier selection problem, Du et al. [7] considered the life-cycle cost through developing a bi-
objective model that could account for the operational cost together with the purchasing cost
since decreasing only the purchasing cost may result in more frequent failure of equipment,
which results in increase of the maintenance costs. For model solving, they introduced a Pareto
genetic algorithm hybridization, multi-intersection and similarity crossover strategy. In order
to minimize the total cost of the product and maximize the quality of the products as well as
the reliability of delivery, Karpak et al. [8] used goal programming (GP) in hydraulic pump
division of a US based manufacturer. Karpak et al. [9] employed visual interactive GP in find-
ing solution for single- and multiple-product supplier selection problems. In order to select
the suppliers and allocating the required quantities based on the total cost of product, total
quality and delivery reliability, Karpak et al. [10] designed a GP model subject to demand and
capacity constraints. Fuzzy mixed-integer GP was developed by Kumar et al. [11] for solving
the supplier selection problem of fuzzy nature. An MIP model for stochastic supplier selection
was introduced by Amorim et al. [12] in the food industry. A Monte Carlo simulation was
applied for fuzzy GP by Moghaddam [13] for the purpose of solving the supplier selection
problem.
Amin et al. [14] was the first to consider the strategic perspectives in applying hybrid
models by devising a two-stage integrated quantified SWOT analysis technique with fuzzy
linear programming (fuzzy LP) to resolve the supplier selection problem. A number of
studies have attempted to apply historical data for supplier selection problem; Faez et al.
[15] for example introduced an integrated case-based reasoning with MIP for selecting
the supplier and the required quantities of goods to order. An integrated approach of
AHP, enhanced by rough set theory and multi-objectives mixed-integer linear program-
ming (MILP), was introduced by Xia and Wu [16] for a multi-product supplier selection
and order allocation problem, in which the suppliers will offer price discounts on sum of
the trade volumes.
Demirtas and Üstün [17], based on the analytical network process (ANP) and the multi-
objective mixed-integer programming (MOMIP), developed a two-stage supplier selection
and order allocation model to minimize the purchasing value, the budget and defect rates.
Using the Tchebycheff procedure the model was solved by the -constraint method and the
reservation level. In order to deal with the supplier selection problem, Wu et al. [18] used the
Delphi method, ANP, and the MOMIP model for supplier selection. In this model the criteria
are first generated by experts using the Delphi method. Then, the obtained criteria are served
as input for the ANP method and in the end, the MOMIP model is utilized for selecting the
best suppliers and the relevant quantities.
Additionally, in a study undertaken by Lee et al. [19] the fuzzy AHP and fuzzy multiple goal
planning were used for selecting the suppliers of a company producing thin-film-transistor liq-
uid-crystal display products. A two-stage model was developed by Liao and Kao [20] by apply-
ing fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-choice GP for selection the appropriate suppliers and allocating
the orders. Also fuzzy TOPSIS and multi-choice GP were used by Rouyendegh and Saputro
[21] in a fertilizer and chemical producing company. In another study conducted by Kilic [22],
the fuzzy TOPSIS was employed together with MILP for selecting the best supplier in a multi-
item/multi-supplier problem. Perçin [23] used integrated AHP–GP for supplier selection
problem. SWOT analysis was used in a study carried out by Ghorbani et al. [24] for evaluating
the suppliers; they also used integer linear programming (ILP) model for selecting and deter-
mining the quantities. The group decision making with different voting power and linear pro-
gramming (LP) were used by Sodenkamp et al. [25] for supplier selection problem. Simić [26]
has reviewed the 50 years of fuzzy set theory and models for supplier selection.
This paper intends to adopt a qualitative method by using PCA, Z-TOPSIS algorithm [27]
with triangular fuzzy number and a mixed integer linear programming for supplier selection.
In order to show its applicability, the proposed methodology is implemented using a case
study involving a pharmaceutical company.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Sections 2 and 3 present the supplier criteria
in pharmaceutical companies and a questionnaire to gather information about the impor-
tance of the criteria; Section 4 reviews the methodology of PCA and its application in reduc-
ing the number of the criteria; Section 5 briefly reviews Z-TOPSIS method; Section 6
presents a new model; Section 7 gives a numerical example to show applicability of the pro-
posed model; Section 8 presents sensitivity analysis of the results; and Section 9 concludes
the paper.
Supplier criteria
In pharmaceutical companies, the main criteria are grouped under six categories, which are
cost, quality, services, delivery, supplier profile and overall personnel capabilities. These pri-
mary criteria are decomposed into various sub-criteria as represented in Table 1:
In the next section, a questionnaire is used to collect information about the importance of
these 24 criteria. Then, the PCA method is applied to reduce the number of criteria to ease the
methodology.
Methods
To rate the supplier selection criteria (c1,c2,. . .,c24) from 0 (the least important) to 10 (the most
important), we asked the business managers of 34 pharmaceutical companies: Hakim(x1),
Aboureyhan(x2), Behvazan(x3), Akbarieh(x4), Arya(x5), Raha(x6), Aryo Gen(x7), Bakhtar
Bioshimi(x8), Cosar(x9), Behsa(x10), Caspian Tamin(x11), Tehran Chemi(x12), Cobel Darou
(x13), Doctor Abidi(x14), Exir(x15), Farabi(x16), Iran Najou(x17), Jaber Ebne Hayan(x18), Kish
Medipharm(x19), Loghman(x20), Alborz Darou(x21), Osveh(x22), Pars Darou(x23), Ramofarmin
(x24), Chemi Darou(x25), Razi(x26), Shahid Ghazy(x27), Sina Darou(x28), Behestan Darou(x29),
Rooz Darou(x30), Sobhan Darou(x31), Zahraavi(x32), Iran Darou(x33), Shafa(x34).
Note that the research was accomplished during the year of 2017. The questionnaire (S1
File) was sent to the companies through e-mail address, and completion of the questionnaire
was taken as consent. Table 2 presents the results of the completed questionnaires.
Next section reviews the methodology of PCA and its application in reducing the number
of the supplier selection criteria.
5 / 17
Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain
Supplier selection in pharmaceutical supply chain
Methodology
Let x = (x1,x2,. . .,xj,. . .,xp); and n as the number of observations allocated for each variable,
hence the data matrix x would be:
2 3
X11 X12 X1j X1p
6 7
6 7
6 X21 X22 X2j X2p 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . . . 7
6 7
x ¼ ðx1 ; x2 ; . . . ; xj ; . . . ; xp Þ ¼ 6 7 ð1Þ
6 Xi1 Xi2 Xij Xip 7
6 7
6 7
6 7
6 .. .. .. .. .. .. 7
6 . . . . . . 7
6 7
4 5
Xn1 Xn2 Xn3 Xnp
The PCA tries to find a new set of variables zs, where zs = (z1s,z2s,. . .,zns) is the linear func-
tions of x. It can be said that from z1 to zp, in descending order of importance, they are uncor-
related:
2 3 2a a12 a1j a1p
3 2 3
z1 11 x1
6 z 7 6 7 6 7
6 2 7 6 a21 a22 a2j a2p 7 6
7 x 7
6 7 6 6 7 6 2 7
6 7 7 6 7
6 . 7 6 7 6 .. 7
6 .. 7 6 . . . . . . 6 . 7
6 7 6 .. .. .. .. . . .. 7 7 6 7
6 7 6 6 7
6 7¼6 76 7: ð2Þ
6 7 6 a a a a 7 6 7
6 zi 7 6 i1 i2 ij ip 7 6
7 6 xi 7 7
6 7 6
6 7 6 6 .. 7
7 6 7
6 . 7 6 .. .. . . .. . . 7 6 . 7
6 . 7 6 . . . . 6
. . 7 4 . 7
4 . 5 4 5 . 5
zp an1 an2 anj anp x p
Accordingly,
zi ¼ ai1 x1 þ ai2 x2 þ þ aij xj þ þ aip xp ; ð3Þ
where the αij represents the weight value, reflecting the vector contribution value of xj to zi.
The αij is normalized as follows:
ai1 þ ai2 þ þ aij þ þ aip ¼ 1: ð4Þ
where the μi represents the contribution weight of zi where μ1>μ2>. . .>μi>. . .>μk the total
SCOREPCA and K represents the number of zs selected to retain (K < P), where K is determined
in two ways: 1) selecting the zi in which the μi value is greater than 1. 2) selecting the highest
number of zs in which the sum total ∑μ contribution is greater than 85%.
Application
Here Table 2 presents the data used as the supplier’s attribute Xij, indicating that the selection
criterion score i based on the business manager j will shape an n×p matrix X, in which n repre-
sents the number of the selected criteria and p denotes the number of business managers.
Thus, the matrix X is entered into the PCA calculation (using SPSS), and a set of zs is devel-
oped. The first five zs will have 86.278% cumulative percentage which is higher than 85 percent
of total variance. Hence the variance percentage of extraction sums of squared loadings of the
first five zs will be used in Eq (5) in order to develop the SCOREPCA of individual selection cri-
terion. At this point, the optimum supplier criteria are selected based on the highest number.
Based on the results of these 24 cases, c19 (certificate of GMP), c4 (product quality), c1 (prod-
uct price), c18 (past record documentation) and c9 (CRM) have the highest SCOREPCA among
the other criteria and they are selected as the best criteria by the scores 6.390, 6.305, 6.147,
5.997 and 5.700, respectively.
Since GMP is the primary condition for selecting the supplier and all firms must have this
certificate, we therefore, set aside this criterion for the rest of the survey.
Next section reviews Z-TOPSIS. This method, using the scores resulted from the PCA
method, will be applied to obtain the importance value of each supplier with respect to each
product.
Z-TOPSIS method
A brief review of some principle definitions of fuzzy sets from Chen [31], Chen and Lee [32],
and Sotoudeh-Anvari and Sadi-Nezhad [33] are given below.
where the μA(x): X![0,1] is a membership function of A. The μA(x) membership value can
describe the belongingness degree of x2X in A. In this study, the type-1 fuzzy number and Z-
number have been represented in triangular fuzzy number form.
Definition 3: Z-number
The Z-number concept is associated with the reliability of the information. The Z-number is
constituted from two components: Z ¼ ðA; e BÞ,
e which A is the fuzzy number and B e represents
the reliability of the fuzzy number, which is also given in fuzzy number [34].
Chen [31] proposed linguistic numbers in the form of Table 3 and Table 4. Additionally,
Table 5 employs the Z-TOPSIS technique to address the reliability of DMs. The numbers in
this table are proposed by the authors.
In order to determine the alternatives’ ranking order, the following algorithm is operated,
whereby the Step 1 is adopted from Kang et al. [35]; however it must be noticed that for the
expert’s reliability, it uses the linguistics variable presented in Table 5 for the component B in
Z-number, followed by Steps 2–7 from Chen [31].
Eq (11).
1 1
e
x ij ¼ x ðþÞe
½e x Kij ;
x 2ij ðþÞ ðþÞe
K ij
ð11Þ
1 1
e j ¼ ½e
w w 2j ðþÞ ðþÞe
w ðþÞe w Kj ;
K j
where the e e j represent the rating and the importance weight of Kth decision maker.
x ij and w
As can be seen from the Eq (12), the multi-criteria decision making problem can readily be
explained in matrix format.
2 3
e 11
X e 12
X e 1n
X
6 7
6 7
6 e 21 e 22 e 2n 7
6 X X X 7
6 7
D¼6
e
6
7
6 .. .. .. .. 77 ð12Þ
6 . . . . 7
6 7
4 5
e m1
X e m2
X Xe mn
w e1
e ¼ ½w e2
w e n ;
w
e
Step 3: Construct normalized fuzzy decision matrix, R
To make different scales comparable, the linear scale transformation shall be used to create the
normalized decision making matrix as represented in Eq (13).
Suppose that
e ¼ ½er ij mn ;
R ð13Þ
where B and C respectively are the set of benefit and cost criteria, and
!
aij bij cij
e
r ij ¼ ; ; ; j 2 B;
cj cj cj
!
aj aj aj
e
r ij ¼ ; ; ; j 2 C; ð14Þ
cij bij aij
cj ¼ max i cij if j 2 B;
aj ¼ mini aij if j 2 C:
The above mentioned technique is intended to retain the feature that the ranges of normal-
ized fuzzy numbers are in the interval [0,1].
e
Step 4: Construct weighted normalized fuzzy decision matrix, V
Given the different importance of each individual criterion, constructing the weighted normal-
ized fuzzy decision matrix would be possible using the Eq (15).
e ¼ ½e
V v ij mn i ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; m and j ¼ 1; 2; . . . ; n; ð15Þ
where e
v ij ¼ e
r ij ð:Þe
wj.
v j ¼ ð1; 1; 1Þ and, e
where e v j ¼ ð0; 0; 0Þ for j = 1,2,. . .,n.
It is obvious that by the approaching of CCi to 1, an alternative Ai gets closer to A and far-
ther from A-. Hence, based on the closeness coefficient, the ranking order of all alternatives
can be determined and from a set of feasible alternatives, the best one can be selected.
In the next section, a new model is presented to determine the suppliers and the amount of
the products provided from the related suppliers.
Assumptions
1. In this study, the purchaser would be allowed to buy from several suppliers.
2. A multi-product environment is considered for this study and several products can be sup-
plied for the customer by the suppliers.
3. The product amounts and the number of suppliers are known.
4. The buyer is allowed to buy for only one single period.
5. Demand has been considered as constant, without any change during the planning period.
6. A fixed budget for purchasing all the products has been considered.
Indices
i and j represent the suppliers and the products, respectively.
Parameters
dij The mean of defective items of product i purchased from supplier j
SIVij The Importance value of supplier j pertinent to item i resulting from the Z-TOPSIS
method
Pij Price of product i purchased from supplier j
BT The total amount of budget available for procurement of various products.
Di Demand for product i
Sij Minimum capacity of product i purchased from supplier j
S0ij Maximum capacity of product i purchased from supplier j
Rij Minimum order of product i purchased from supplier j
R0ij Maximum order of product i purchased from supplier j
maxNS Maximum number of possible suppliers to be selected
minNS Minimum number of possible suppliers to be selected
Decision variables
xij The amount of product i purchased from supplier j
yij The binary variable, which is one in case the product i is purchased from the supplier j and
will be zero, otherwise
MILP model
Pn Pn
Max Z¼ i¼1 j¼1 SIVij xij ð19Þ
Pn Pn
s:t: i¼1 P x BT
j¼1 ij ij ð20Þ
Pn
x ð1
j¼1 ij dij Þ Di ; i ¼ 1; . . . ; m ð21Þ
Pn Pn
minNS i¼1 y maxNS;
j¼1 ij ð24Þ
The objective function is presented in Eq (19) which determines the highest importance value
of the selected suppliers relative to each product item through maximizing the related
expression.
In constraints (20). the sum of the required budget must be determined, Eq (21) is associ-
ated with demand, Eqs 22 and 23 determine whether an item, say the part i is ordered from
supplier j, the ordered number of items must lie within the supplier capacity and the required
demand, respectively. Finally, the selected number of suppliers must be restricted by a mini-
mum and a maximum numbers given by Eq (24).
In the section, a numerical example is given to show applicability of the proposed model.
Note that in the first step, the business managers of 34 pharmaceutical companies are asked to
rate the 24 supplier selection criteria. Using the PCA method, these 24 supplier selection crite-
ria are reduced to 4, which are: product quality, product price, past record documentation and
CRM. Therefore, all the pharmaceutical companies can only consider these four criteria and
the scores resulted from the PCA method are considered as input for the next steps for the
implementation of Z-TOPSIS and MILP model. For the example of the proposed method, we
consider one firm with two decision makers who used 4 criteria obtained from the previous
method. In other words, all other pharmaceutical firms could use these 4 criteria for ranking
purposes.
A case study
In the present study, Microsoft Excel is used for the suppliers’ ranking. The evaluation of rank-
ing and the suppliers’ weights processes are described below. In this paper, we have used the
linguistic numbers given in Table 2 to evaluate the criteria importance; also we have used the
information of Table 5 for criteria reliability measurement represented in Table 6 in the Z-
number form.
Next, in order to evaluate the suppliers’ rating corresponding to each criterion, the DMs
use the linguistic rating variable presented in Table 4 and make use of the data given in Table 5
for measuring the reliability of the supplier performance evaluation corresponding to each
individual criterion as represented in Table 7 and Table 8.
Now for the purpose of supplier selection problem case study, the Z-TOPSIS Algorithm is
applied. Table 9 below shows the final results:
As we can observe from the results of Table 9, supplier 2 (CC2 = 0.635) is considered as the
most important one followed by supplier 3 (CC3 = 0.526), supplier 1 (CC1 = 0.474) and sup-
plier 4 (CC4 = 0.354).
These importance values are input to the proposed mathematical model for the coefficients
of the objective function. The parameter values that are required for supplying one item are
presented below.
S11 ¼ 10; S12 ¼ 20; S13 ¼ 50; S14 ¼ 0; S011 ¼ 200; S012 ¼ 100; S013 ¼ 200; S014 ¼ 50;
R11 ¼ 0; R12 ¼ 0; R13 ¼ 0; R14 ¼ 0; R011 ¼ 100; R012 ¼ 50; R013 ¼ 200; R014 ¼ 200;
minNS ¼ 2; maxNS ¼ 3:
The mathematical model is coded in GAMS optimization program. The optimum solution
and the amount of products that suppliers can provide are given below.
In order to code the mathematical model the GAMS optimization program has been used.
The optimum solution and the product amounts that could be provided by the suppliers are
shown below.
z ¼ 184:200;
Sensitivity analysis
To investigate the effect of criteria weights on ranking of different suppliers, a sensitivity analy-
sis is performed. Using varying degrees of criteria weights, resulted from the first step of
Z-TOPSIS method, we have measured the changes in the outcome. Specifically, six cases were
examined, but the ranking of the suppliers has remained unchanged. The details of the cases
are presented in Table 10, and the sensitivity results for the suppliers 1 to 4 are shown in
Table 11. The preliminary results have indicated that the proposed method could provide rela-
tively robust results for supplier selection problem.
Conclusions
Contrary to the broad spectrum of studies undertaken on the supplier selection, the supplier
assessment and selection through the application of specific measures relevant to the pharma-
ceutical industry were not extensively investigated. To bridge the gap, the current study has
introduced a new selection model for the under study company aiming at presenting the ideas
on the set up procedure of a Z-TOPSIS based selection model particularly designed to resolve
the supplier selection problem in pharmaceutical industry. However, for the other industries,
the relevant characteristics and requirements must be primarily studied. The questionnaire
used in this paper was strongly recommended for determining the tailor-made supplier selec-
tion criteria in pharmaceutical industry. Obviously, for other industries, the questionnaire
must be updated based on different criteria.
The PCA method has been used in this study to cut the number of supplier selection crite-
ria, coupled with MILP model based on the Z-TOPSIS method. The merits development was
described below.
The PCA can effectively remove the multicollinearity existing among the criteria ranking
and would help reducing the trade-offs and the errors frequency in the questionnaire. The sub-
jective errors also could efficiently be reduced using the PCA, meaning that the weight allo-
cated to each z would be generated automatically. This model avoids complex and subjective
pair-wise comparison for determining the ranking weights, which would eventually result in
mitigation of this type of subjective errors. Moreover, it reduces the dimensionality of the
questionnaire data meanwhile retaining the significant amount of information.
TOPSIS method using Z-numbers is used in this paper through extending the fuzzy rule
based approach in multi-criteria decision making analysis. The proposed method, meanwhile
providing a more useful way of handling vagueness and imperfection of information in deci-
sion making process, represents the expert knowledge more precisely. This method is more
efficient compared with the current non-rule based TOPSIS in relation with ranking process.
Moreover, due to the software availability (SPSS, Microsoft Excel and GAMS), the proposed
model is considered a user-friendly tool applicable for supplier selection.
As a future study, it is possible to use recent advances of robust optimization for supplier
selection and we leave it for interested researchers. Furthermore, it would be interesting if the
future work discusses the relationship between the results of this paper and the ones in the
quotient space of fuzzy numbers [37,38] or symmetric fuzzy numbers [39].
Supporting information
S1 File. English questionnaire.
(PDF)
S2 File. Farsi questionnaire.
(PDF)
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Babak Farhang Moghadam.
Investigation: Athena Forghani.
Methodology: Seyed Jafar Sadjadi.
Supervision: Seyed Jafar Sadjadi.
References
1. Bohner C, Minner S. Supplier selection under failure risk, quantity and business volume discounts.
Comput Ind Eng. 2017; 104:145–55.
2. Rao C, Xiao X, Goh M, Zheng J, Wen J. Compound mechanism design of supplier selection based on
multi-attribute auction and risk management of supply chain. Comput Ind Eng. 2017; 105:63–75.
3. Krajewsld LJ, Ritzman LP. Operations management strategy and analysis. London: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co.; 1996.
4. Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C. A decision support system for supplier selection using an integrated ana-
lytic hierarchy process and linear programming. Int J Prod Econ. 1998; 56–57:199–212.
5. Liu F-HF, Hai HL. The voting analytic hierarchy process method for selecting supplier. Int J Prod Econ.
2005; 97(3):308–17.
6. Zhang J-l, Zhang M-y. Supplier selection and purchase problem with fixed cost and constrained order
quantities under stochastic demand. Int J Prod Econ. 2011; 129(1):1–7.
7. Du B, Guo S, Huang X, Li Y, Guo J. A Pareto supplier selection algorithm for minimum the life cycle cost
of complex product system. Expert Syst Appl. 2015; 42(9):4253–64.
8. Karpak B, Kasuganti RR, Kumcu E. Multi-objective decision-making in supplier selection: An application
of visual interactive goal programming. J Appl Bus Res. 1999; 15(2):57–72.
9. Karpak B, Kumcu E, Kasuganti RR. An application of visual interactive goal programming: a case in
vendor selection decisions. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal. 1999; 8(2):93–105.
10. Karpak B, Kumcu E, Kasuganti RR. Purchasing materials in the supply chain: Managing a multiobjec-
tive task. Eur J Purchas Supply Manage. 2001; 7(3):209–16.
11. Kumar M, Vrat P, Shankar R. A fuzzy goal programming approach for vendor selection problem in a
supply chain. Comput Ind Eng. 2004; 46(1):69–85.
12. Amorim P, Curcio E, Almada-Lobo B, Barbosa-Póvoa APFD, Grossmann IE. Supplier selection in the
processed food industry under uncertainty. Eur J Oper Res. 2016; 252(3):801–14.
13. Moghaddam KS. Fuzzy multi-objective model for supplier selection and order allocation in reverse logis-
tics systems under supply and demand uncertainty. Expert Syst Appl. 2015; 42(15):6237–54.
14. Amin SH, Razmi J, Zhang G. Supplier selection and order allocation based on fuzzy SWOT analysis
and fuzzy linear programming. Expert Syst Appl. 2011; 38(1):334–42.
15. Faez F, Ghodsypour SH, O’Brien C. Vendor selection and order allocation using an integrated fuzzy
case-based reasoning and mathematical programming model. Int J Prod Econ. 2009; 121(2):395–408.
16. Xia W, Wu Z. Supplier selection with multiple criteria in volume discount environments. Omega. 2007;
35(5):494–504.
17. Demirtas EA, Üstün Ö. An integrated multiobjective decision making process for supplier selection and
order allocation. Omega. 2008; 36(1):76–90.
18. Wu W-Y, Sukoco BM, Li C-Y, Chen SH. An integrated multi-objective decision-making process for sup-
plier selection with bundling problem. Expert Syst Appl. 2009; 36(2, Part 1):2327–37.
19. Lee AHI, Kang H-Y, Chang C-T. Fuzzy multiple goal programming applied to TFT-LCD supplier selec-
tion by downstream manufacturers. Expert Syst Appl. 2009; 36(3, Part 2):6318–25.
20. Liao C-N, Kao H-P. An integrated fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP approach to supplier selection in supply
chain management. Expert Syst Appl. 2011; 38(9):10803–11.
21. Rouyendegh BD, Saputro TE. Supplier Selection Using Integrated Fuzzy TOPSIS and MCGP: A Case
Study. Procd Soc Behv. 2014; 116(Supplement C):3957–70.
22. Kilic HS. An integrated approach for supplier selection in multi-item/multi-supplier environment. Appl
Math Model. 2013; 37(14):7752–63.
23. Perçin S. An application of the integrated AHP-PGP model in supplier selection. Meas Bus Excell.
2006; 10(4):34–49.
24. Ghorbani M, Arabzad SM, Bahrami M. Implementing Shannon Entropy, SWOT and Mathematical Pro-
gramming for Supplier Selection and Order Allocation. Int J Supply Chain Manag. 2012; 1(1):43–7.
25. Sodenkamp MA, Tavana M, Di Caprio D. Modeling synergies in multi-criteria supplier selection and
order allocation: An application to commodity trading. Eur J Oper Res. 2016; 254(3):859–74.
26. Simić D, Kovačević I, Svirčević V, Simić S. 50 years of fuzzy set theory and models for supplier assess-
ment and selection: A literature review. J Appl Log. 2017; 24:85–96.
27. Yaakob AM, Gegov A. Interactive TOPSIS Based Group Decision Making Methodology Using Z-Num-
bers. Int J Comput Int Sys. 2016; 9(2):311–24.
28. Pearson K. On lines and planes of closest fit to systems of points in space. Philos Mag. 1901; 2(6):559–
72.
29. Fan L. Structural health monitoring base on principal components analysis implemented on a distributed
and open system: City University of Hong Kong; 2006.
30. Lam KC, Hu TS, Ng ST. Using the principal component analysis method as a tool in contractor pre-qual-
ification. Constr Manage Econ. 2005; 23(7):673–84.
31. Chen C-T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Set
Syst. 2000; 114(1):1–9.
32. Chen S-M, Lee L-W. Fuzzy multiple attributes group decision-making based on the interval type-2 TOP-
SIS method. Expert Syst Appl. 2010; 37(4):2790–8.
33. Sotoudeh-Anvari A, Sadi-Nezhad S. A new approach based on the level of reliability of information to
determine the relative weights of criteria in fuzzy TOPSIS. Int J Inform Tech Decis Making. 2015; 8
(2):164–78.
34. Zadeh LA. A Note on Z-numbers. Inform Sciences. 2011; 181(14):2923–32.
35. Kang B, Wei D, Li Y, Deng Y. A Method of Converting Z-number to Classical Fuzzy Number. J Inform
Comput Sci. 2012; 9(3):703–9.
36. Bani E, Jafari D. The total cost of logistics in supplier selection, under conditions of multiple sourcing,
multiple criteria and capacity constraint. Decis Sci Lett. 2016; 5(2):211–8.
37. Qiu D, Lu C, Zhang W, Lan Y. Algebraic properties and topological properties of the quotient space of
fuzzy numbers based on Mareš equivalence relation. Fuzzy Set Syst. 2014; 245:63–82.
38. Qiu D, Zhang W, Lu C. On fuzzy differential equations in the quotient space of fuzzy numbers. Fuzzy
Set Syst. 2016; 295:72–98.
39. Qiu D, Zhang W. Symmetric fuzzy numbers and additive equivalence of fuzzy numbers. Soft Comput.
2013; 17(8):1471–7.